Pombert vs Glock complaint

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 74

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
JEFFREY L. POMBERT,
Plaintiff,
v.
GLOCK, INC.,
CONSULTINVEST, INC.,
ROBERT T. CORE,
JAMES M. DEICHERT, and
JOHN F. RENZULLI,

NO. - - - - - - -

Defendants.

THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, Georgia 30060
Phone (770)419-8505
Fax (770) 590-8958
JOHN F. SALTER
Georgia Bar No. 623325
[email protected]
ROY E. BARNES
Georgia Bar NO.030040
[email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 74

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

NATURE OF THE ACTION ...................................................... 1

II.

PARTIES AND NON-PARTY STATE ACTORS ........................... 3
A.
B.
C.

Parties ........................................................................... 3
Glock Sr. 's Controlling Influence ........................................... 5
TIle Ellterprise .................................................................. 6

III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................. 10

IV.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................. 12
A.
B.

V.

THE INVESTIGATION BY HARPER ....................................... 20
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.

VI.

The "Glock Structure" ...................................................... 12
The Falling Out Between Glock Sr. and Ewert .......................... 18

Scope of the Harper Team's Engagement. ................................ 20
Billing Rates and Terms ..................................................... 22
Harper's Investigation Succeeds Regarding Eweli But Also Uncovers
Evidence Pointing to Complicity of Glock Sr ........................... 24
Harper's Team Facilitates Investigation of Competing Claims to
Ownership over Unipatent. ................................................. 27
Harper Discovers the Adaptation of Ewert's Glock Structure Schemes
by Glock Sr ................................................................... 29
Plaintiff Finds the Missing Link To Defeat Ewert's Embezzlement
Scheme ........................................................................ 32
Panama Operation ............................................................ 34

GLOCK SR.'S REVERSAL OF POSITION ................................. 38
A.
B.
C.
D.

Harper's Unpaid Bills ...................................................... 040
Criminal Complaint Made Against Harper ............................. . 040
Glock Sr., Glock Inc., Renzulli, Deichert, and Core Fabricate a
Malicious Prosecution of Both Harper and Plaintiff. ................. .. 043
Harper's Investigative Files ............................................... .45

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 3 of 74

VII. THE ENTERPRISE CONSPIRES WITH, DIRECTS, AND
CONTROLS STATE ACTORS ................................................ .45
VIII. INDICTMENT, FALSE ARREST AND RESOLUTION IN FAVOR OF
PLAINTIFF ......................................................................... 49
IX.

PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE OF ENTERPRISE CONSPIRACY WITH
STATE ACTORS BUTTERS AND OFFICER HARRISON FOR
PURPOSES OF EVIDENCE- AND WITNESS-TAMPERING .......... 51

X.

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR ..................................................... 57

COUNT ONE: Conspiracy for Violation of Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ....... 57
COUNT TWO: State Law Claim For Malicious Arrest And Prosecution ............. 60
COUNT THREE: O.C.O.A. § 16-14-4(A) .............................................. 60
COUNT FOUR: O.C.O.A. § 16-14-4(B) ............................................... 67
COUNT FIVE: O.C.O.A. § 16-14-4(C) ................................................ 68
COUNT SIX: Punitive Damages ......................................................... 69
PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................. 69

11

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 4 of 74

COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff Jeffrey L. Pombert, by and through undersigned
counsel, and alleges the following complaint against the above-named defendants.

I.
1.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action by Jeffrey L. Pombert for damages arising from a

malicious prosecution instigated and orchestrated by Defendants and their agents
or associates in furtherance of a criminal enterprise and pattern of racketeering
activity. The purpose of the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff was to silence,
punish, and discredit him in order to conceal an ongoing racketeering scheme
spanning decades and, literally, the globe. To that end, Defendants engaged in a
wide-ranging campaign of evidence tampering, falsification of evidence, and
improper influencing of witnesses. As a direct result, Plaintiff suffered great injury.
2.

Defendants, led by Gaston Glock Sr. ("Glock Sr."), designed their

scheme for the purpose of punishing, discrediting, and retaliating against Plaintiff
who, as part of a team of investigators led by James R. Harper, III ("Harper"),
uncovered knowledge and evidence implicating Glock Inc., Consultinvest, and
Glock S1'. in various unlawful schemes.
3.

Defendants, Glock S1'., and a host of Glock-related entities were

involved in celiain racketeering activities that employed a tangled web of fictive
- 1-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 5 of 74

legal relationships, offshore business entities, and international financial
transactions ("the Glock Structure") . Upon information and belief, the object of
the primary racketeering scheme was for purposes of tax evasion and/or to steal,
siphon, divert, and hide monies and assets away from Glock Sr. 's familial
relatives.
4.

The Glock Structure, as a matter of practice and modus operandi,

disrespected and misused virtually all of the characteristic instruments of lawful
commerce by documenting pretextual corporate acts, titles, contracts, and legal
relationships, by issuing and paying sham invoices for transactions without
economic substance, and by creating "dummy" corporate entities and structures
that lacked any valid business purpose. These machinations were designed to
provide Defendants, Glock Sr., and his associates with plausible deniability and the
false appearance of arm's-length dealings.
5.

In his professional capacity as an attorney, between approximately

March 2001 and March 2003, Plaintiff assisted Harper with a sensitive,
complicated,

and

multi-faceted

mISSIOn

involving

an

internal

corporate

investigation, tax- and legal-compliance work, and a globe-trotting legal campaign
to preserve Glock Sr.'s control over Glock Inc.'s cash-flows and its related
corporate entities. In the course of the investigation, Harper uncovered evidence
-2-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 6 of 74

consistent with a pervasive racketeering scheme that had the potential to implicate
Glock Sr., himself.
6.

Subsequently, the Glock Structure combined in a conspiracy to

target, falsely arrest, and maliciously prosecute Plaintiff for purposes of smearing,
discrediting, punishing, and falsely imprisoning him. In aid of this conspiracy, an
Enterprise was formed that, over a period of years, tampered with evidence,
illegally influenced witnesses, withheld material and exculpatory evidence, and
fabricated false evidence for the purpose of causing injury to Plaintiff. The
Defendants secured the cooperation of State Actors, who abdicated their solemn
role of screening criminal complaints to shield citizens against vindictive
prosecutions. What followed was a privately-financed, privately-led criminal
"investigation" in which the State Actors were mere bystanders. Armed with the
power of an "out-sourced" public prosecution, the Defendants used it for private
vengeance.

n.
A.

PARTIES AND NON-PARTY STATE ACTORS

Parties

7.

Plaintiff is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice law

in the State of Georgia.

-3-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 7 of 74

8.

Prior to his retention as part of Harper's investigative team,

Plaintiff was a lawyer with a successful civil practice in complex commercial
litigation. Following this engagement, Plaintiffs reputation and livelihood were
smeared by an arrest and indictment based on charges that were trumped up by
Glock Sr.'s proxies using phony evidence and tampered witnesses as part of a
conspiracy that included state actors acting under color of state law.
9.

Plaintiff has standing to bring these claims because, as described

more fully herein, he is a person who sustained injury in the form of unjust arrest,
malicious prosecution, as well as damage to his professional livelihood, reputation,
and property by reason of Defendants' conduct. Defendants' acts of racketeering
have been directed at Plaintiff and he was an intended victim of Defendants'
actions.
10.

Defendant Glock, Inc. ("Glock Inc.") is a corporation organized

under the laws of the State of Georgia, with its principal place of business in
Smyrna, Georgia.
11.

Defendant Consultinvest, Inc. ("Consultinvest") is a corporation

organized under the laws of the State of Georgia, with its principal place of
business in Smyrna, Georgia.

-4-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 8 of 74

12.

Defendant John Renzulli ("Renzulli") is a citizen of New York and

a New York lawyer and a participant in the Enterprise, defined inji-a.
13.

Defendant James Deichert ("Deicheli") is a citizen of Georgia, a

lawyer for Glock Sr., Glock Inc., and Consultinvest, and a participant in the
Enterprise, defined irifra.
14.

Defendant Robert Core ("Core") is a citizen of Virginia, a lawyer,

and a participant in the Enterprise, defined infra.
B.

Glock Sr.'s Controlling Influence
15.

Glock Sr. is a citizen of the Republic of Austria.

16.

At all times material hereto, Glock Sr. exercised ultimate control

and authority over Glock Inc. and Consultinvest, such that those entities no longer
had a separate mind, will, or corporate existence of their own. The corporate
entities within the Glock Structure, including Glock Inc. and Consultinvest, were
mere instrumentalities used by Glock Sr. to further his own interests. In substance,
Defendants were mere alter egos of Glock Sr., such that it is fair to impute the
actions of Glock Sr. to Glock Inc. and Consultinvest and vice versa.
17.

Each of the above corporate entities and others controlled by Glock

Sr. comprise the Glock Structure.

-5-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 9 of 74

c.

The Enterprise

18.

Cumulatively, the Enterprise, as it is used in this Complaint,

consists of Glock Inc., Consultinvest, Glock Sr., Deichert, Renzulli, and Core, all
of whom were agents of Defendants Glock Inc. and Consultinvest and combined
their efforts with State Actors acting under color of state law in a related and
common undeliaking.
19.

The common undertaking of the Enterprise persisted over an

extended period of years and employed the same or similar methods of
commission of criminal acts (tampering with evidence, illegally influencing
witnesses, planting false evidence, making false statements, and other unlawful
acts), in connection with falsely arresting and maliciously prosecuting Plaintiff.
20.

The false arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff served a larger purpose

of discrediting, punishing, and ruining Plaintiff in the hopes of shielding and
secreting Defendants' and Glock Sr. 's paIiicipation in certain unlawful schemes in
which the Glock Structure had been involved for many years and, upon
information and belief, may continue to this day.
21.

Renzulli is a citizen of New York and a New York lawyer and a

member of the Enterprise. Renzulli was employed by Glock Sr., Glock Inc.,
. Consultinvest andlor other Glock Structure entities for the purposes of controlling

-6-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 10 of 74

and furthering the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff. Renzulli committed acts in
furtherance of the goals of the racketeering Enterprise, which included, among
others, to discredit and punish Plaintiff and to engineer a false arrest and
indictment to aid in the concealment of Glock Sr.'s complicity in the unlawful
racketeering schemes and other illegal activities that pervaded Glock Inc.,
Consultinvest, and other Glock entities under the control of Glock Sr.
22.

Deichert is a citizen of Georgia, a lawyer for Glock Sr., Glock Inc.

and Consultinvest, and a member of the Enterprise. Deicheli was employed by
Glock Sr., Glock Inc., and / or other Glock Structure entities for the purposes of
controlling and furthering the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff. As part of the
Enterprise, Deichert falsified records, made false statements directed to law
enforcement, and committed other acts in furtherance of the goals of the
Enterprise.
23.

Core is a citizen of Virginia, a lawyer, and a member of the

Enterprise. Core was employed by Glock Sr., Glock Inc., Consultinvest, and / or
other Glock Structure entities for the purposes of controlling and fmihering the
malicious prosecution of Plaintiff. As pati of the Enterprise, Core falsified records,
created false "evidence," withheld exculpatory documents, illegally tampered with
witnesses, and committed other acts in furtherance of the goals of the Enterprise.
-7-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 11 of 74

24.

State Actor Ramon Keith Harrison ("Officer Harrison") is a former

police officer for the City of Smyrna, located in Cobb County, Georgia. Under
color of state law, Officer Harrison conspired and had a common understanding
with the Enterprise to facilitate tampering with evidence, illegally influencing
witnesses, and committing other acts in furtherance of the goals of the Enterprise.
But for the protection of the legal doctrine of qualified immunity, Officer Harrison
would have been named as a defendant in this action.
25.

State Actor John Butters ("Butters") is a former Cobb County

assistant district attorney. Under color of state law, Butters conspired and had a
common understanding with the Enterprise in order to facilitate tampering with
evidence, illegally influencing witnesses, and committing other acts in fmiherance
of the goals of the Enterprise. But for the protection of qualified immunity and/or
prosecutorial immunity, Butters would have been named as a defendant in this
action.
26.

Each of those identified as members of the Enterprise and the State

Actors intentionally played some material role in the conspiracy targeting Plaintiff
regardless of whether each was aware of the roles and means employed by others.
27.

The Enterprise furnished a vehicle for the commission of a pattern

of racketeering activity that, as an extension of the primary racketeering activity
-8-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 12 of 74

involving the Glock Structure, had a secondary objective: targeting Plaintiff and
others who had knowledge of Glock Sr. and his unlawful dealings in order to
silence, punish, discredit, ruin, falsely arrest, and even falsely convict them.
28.

The Enterprise had a common purpose. Moreover, it had an

ongoing structure or organization supported by personnel or associates with
continuing functions or duties: lawyers operating under the pretended cloak of
"attorney-client privilege"; a common source(s) of financing their efforts;
relationships among those associated with the Enterprise; and longevity sufficient
to sustain the Enterprise's purpose.
29.

A hierarchy existed

111

which Glock Sr. was the leader, while

Defendants and members of the Enterprise (many of them attorneys answering to
Glock Sr.) controlled and combined with the State Actors named herein to operate
and manage the Enterprise's affairs and achieve its ends.
30.

The Enterprise is distinct from the pattern of the prImary

racketeering activity in which Glock Sr. and his trustee, Charles Eweli, presumably
engaged in their joint establishment of the Glock Structure for unlawful purposes
and the Enterprise is distinct from anyone Defendant.

-9-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 13 of 74

III.

31.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) because
Plaintiffs claims arise pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, et seq. (conspiracy in
deprivation of constitutional civil rights).
32.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this COUli has supplemental

jurisdiction over Plaintiff s claims arising under state law because the claims are so
related to claims in this action within the Court's original jurisdiction that they
form part of the same case or controversy.
33.

Defendants Glock Inc. and Consultinvest are subject to the

personal jurisdiction of this COUli because they are organized under the laws of the
State of Georgia, maintain their principal places of business in the State of Georgia
and Cobb County located in the NOlihern District of Georgia, and committed a
substantial amount of the wrongs described herein in Cobb County and the State of
Georgia.
34.

Defendant Deichert is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this

COUli as a resident of the State of Georgia living within this federal district.
35.

Defendants Renzulli and Core are subject to the personal

jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91(1) and (3) because they:
- 10 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 14 of 74

(a)

have regularly transacted business within the State of Georgia;

(b)

committed tOliious acts and omissions within the State of Georgia;
and

(c)

committed tortious injuries within the State of Georgia by acts and
omissions outside the State of Georgia.

36.

Defendants may be served pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and/or 18 U.S.C. § 1965(d).
37.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(I)

because Glock Inc. and Consultinvest reside and maintain their principal places of
business within the Northern District of Georgia. Further, venue is proper in this
district pursuant to § 1391(b)(2) because:
(a)

a substantial pati of the events or omISSIOns gIVmg nse to
Plaintiffs claims occurred in this judicial district;

(b)

Defendants pursued the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff under
color of state law in conspiracy with State Actors located in this
judicial district and using the courts of Cobb County, also located
within this judicial district; and

(c)

a substantial pati of the propeliy that is the subject of the action is
situated in this judicial district.
- 11 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 15 of 74

IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.

The "Glock Structure"

38.

Glock Inc. is one of the world's best known and most profitable

firearms companies.
39.

Based in Smyrna, Georgia (and within this federal judicial district),

Glock Inc. sells pistols manufactured by Glock Ges.m.b.H. in Austria.
40.
agencIes

Glock Inc. sells weaponry to military and law enforcement
III

at least forty eight countries, and to civilians in more than 100

countries.
41.

With an approximate sixty five percent market share, Glock Inc.

dominates the United States gun market, the most lucrative market for handguns in
the world. Throughout its history and today, the overwhelming bulk of Glock
Inc. 's revenues have come from the United States.
42.

Glock's annual revenues have been estimated at $400 million,

with more than a million of its guns sold in the United States in a single year.
43.

Glock Inc.'s success in penetrating the world's largest gun market,

combined with an estimated profit margin per pistol of sixty eight percent made
Glock Inc. a cash cow and extraordinary wealth-generating machine.

- 12 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 16 of 74

44.

Behind the scenes of Glock, Inc.'s astonishing success m

conquermg the American gun market, however, all was not well. Glock Sr.
employed shadowy figures adept at creating a corporate structure, the Glock
Structure, that, through a sequence of sham corporate acts, would repeatedly and
falsely manipulate the stated ownership of Glock Inc. and the Glock Structure.
45.

These corporate machinations, which began almost as soon as

Glock Inc. was formed, were just the beginning stages of what would eventually
become a much broader racketeering scheme to siphon, divert, and hide monies
and assets.
46.

The history of corporate acts reflecting the purported ownership of

the Glock Structure over time is a study in disrespect for corporate fonnalities and
the corporate form. It includes backdated documents, bearer agreements, abuse of
powers of attorney, bogus agreements, phantom capital increases, and gratuitous
share transfers masquerading as if they had a bonafide economic purpose.
47.

This was consistent with Glock Sr.'s habitual disregard of

corporate formalities and purposeful misuse of legal documents that failed to
correspond with reality.

- ]3 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 17 of 74

48.

Upon information and belief, Glock Sr. and Charles Ewert

("Eweli") designed and operated the Glock Structure from its inception in the
1980s until July 27,2009.
49.

Glock Sr. relied upon Ewert to develop a comprehensive plan for

structuring and operating Glock Structure in such a way that Glock Sr. and his
associates would be able to systematically and secretly divert income and assets
from Glock Inc. for themselves.
50.

The Glock Structure was created to, and upon information and

belief continues to, operate as Glock Sr. 's alter ego.
51.

Eweli served as a trustee of Glock Sr. and together, they

improperly and unlawfully diverted over $100 million of revenues. Also, Ewert
embezzled millions of dollars for himself.
52.

The structure devised by Glock Sr. and Ewert was complex and

had several salient features intended to facilitate their scheme.
53.

Defendants carried out a methodical and deliberate pattern and

practice of conducting sham transactions over a period of decades.
54.

One significant feature of the Glock Structure's corporate

organization installed Eweli as the ostensible face of a Luxembourgish entity
named Unipatent Holding S.A. ("Unipatent"). Unipatent was pOlirayed falsely by
- 14 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 18 of 74

Glock Sr. as an arm's-length partner of Glock Ges.m.b.H that had supposedly
helped the company distribute its products internationally.
55.

Organizational chmis illustrating the structure are attached hereto

as Exhibit A and B. They do not include every member of the so-called Glock
Structure or depict it as it may exist in the present day. The depicted entities
included not only Glock Inc. (distribution for North America), but also Glock
Hong Kong, and Glock America (distribution for Asia and South America,
respectively).
56.

A second feature was a system of "royalty" payments to be made

by Glock Inc. for use of the "Glock" name and logo. Although any legitimate
payments should have been made to Glock Ges.m.b.H. (which held, at a minimum,
a trademark for the logo), they were actually used as a means to funnel money to
Glock Sr.
57.

By way of illustration, the initial agreement concerning royalty

payments was dated as of December 1985 and signed by Glock Sr. (on behalf of
Glock Ges.m.b.H.) and his associate Walter (on behalf of Glock Inc.). On
information and belief, Glock Sr. has directly received improper royalty payments,
despite the fact that he has never owned a trademark for either the Glock name or
logo.
- 15 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 19 of 74

58.

The third feature of the scheme was that Ewert would form and

operate three offshore "billing companies," whose sole purpose was to issue fake
invoices to the operating entities of the Glock Structure. At one time, these billing
companies included:
(a)

Base Technical Engineers Limited ("BTE"), incorporated

111

Ireland, that issued fake invoices to Glock Ges.m.b.H.;
(b)

Minami Enterprises Limited ("Minami"), incorporated in
Liberia, that

(c)

issued fake invoices to Glock Hong Kong; and

Taziria A.V.V. ("Taziria"), incorporated in Aruba, which issued
fake invoices to Glock America.

59.

The fOUlih feature was that Ewert would act as the face of real

estate holding companies also owned by Unipatent, whose purpose was to "own"
the real propeliy and equipment of the Glock Structure and to collect fraudulent
"rents" from operating Glock Structure companies. These real estate holding
companies included Consultinvest, Inc., incorporated in the State of Georgia with
its registered agent in Cobb County.
60.

Glock Sr. and his associates incorporated Consultinvest solely for

the purpose of collecting rents from Glock Inc.

- 16 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 20 of 74

61.

The fifth feature was that EWe1i would form and operate sham

finance companies, whose purpose was to document phony loans to the real estate
holding companies -

such as Consultinvest -

and to issue fake invoices to them

for purpOlied interest on those loans.
62.

Glock Sr. stood behind the activities of each of the foregoing

entities. Contrary to sworn deposition testimony in various lawsuits involving
Glock guns, Glock Sr. owned 100 percent of Unipatent through a Panamanian
entity, Reofin International S.A. ("Reofin").
63.

Glock Sr. gave perjured testimony in a case against Glock Inc. and

Glock Ges.m.b.H. in a South Carolina state cOUli when he falsely denied any
personal knowledge of Unipatent's ownership. Kimbrell v. Glock, Inc., Case No.
96-C-42-1946, Mar. 2, 1998 Glock Sr. dep. at 69, 71. (Ct. Com. PI. Spartanburg

Cnty., S.C.).!
64.

The truth was materially different. Glock Sr. did know who owned

Unipatent. He owned it through Reofin.
65.

Through a series of foreign entities, including Reofin and

Unipatent, Glock Sr. owned 100 percent of the real estate holding company

Upon information and belief, Renzulli, in his capacity as corporate counsel for the
Glock Structure corporate entities involved in the lawsuits would have witnessed
Glock Sr. 's peljury.
I

- 17 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 21 of 74

Consultinvest and all of the "other half' of the Glock operating subsidiaries Glock
Inc., Glock Hong Kong, and Glock America. Either through Reofin, or directly,
Glock Sr. also owned 100 percent of the three offshore "billing companies" BTE, Minami, and Taziria.
66.

Reofin served as a collection point for Glock Sr., whereby income

and assets that were siphoned or diverted away from other corporate entities would
eventually funnel into an entity, or entities, under Glock Sr.'s control. Upon
information and belief, Eweli did not receive formal compensation for his role in
the scheme, but was instead expected to take his cut directly from the entities and
bank accounts that he administered.
67.

The complex features and unlawful purpose(s) of the Glock

Structure were uncovered by Harper because of his engagement to pursue a
lengthy and challenging internal investigation triggered by a bizarre falling out
between Glock Sr. and Ewert, described in more detail infra.
B. The Falling Out Between Glock Sr. and Ewert
68.

Glock S1'.'s use of the Glock Structure to siphon, divert, and hide

monies and corporate assets proceeded without any significant disruption until the
summer of 1999 when Glock Sr. was attacked by an assailant in a parking garage

- 18 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 22 of 74

in Luxembourg. Subsequently, Ewert was implicated in the bungled assassinationfor-hire scheme.
69.

What followed next was a legal battle for corporate control over

the components and pieces of the Glock Structure, even as the criminal
investigation of Ewert proceeded simultaneously.
70.

Especially from 2000 to 2003, Glock Sr. and Eweli (and their

lawyers and proxies) jousted in a series oflegal skirmishes for control of the Glock
Structure, including Unipatent, Consultinvest, and their respective bank accounts.
71.
111

Because many of these companies had been incorporated or based

far-flung jurisdictions-many of them notorious for having loose legal

restrictions and lor as havens for money laundering and organized crime-Glock
Sr. and Eweli's legal battles spanned the world globe.
72.

To aid him in this struggle, in 2000 Glock Sr. retained Harper, who

would ultimately lead a team of lawyers and investigators under his supervision.
Among other things, Harper was tasked with winning the contest with Ewert and
cementing Glock Sr.' s control over the lucrative Glock Structure.

- 19 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 23 of 74

V.
73.

THE INVESTIGATION BY HARPER

In pursuing Ewert through courts across the world, however, Glock

Sr. had to disavow the fictive legal relationships Glock Sr. and Eweli had
previously put in place together for the purpose of creating a patina of legitimacy
for their unlawful transactions.
74.

Upon engaging Harper, Glock Sr. denied any knowledge or

pmiicipation in the Glock Structure's schemes and blamed Ewert. At that time, and
given Ewert's public implication in an assassination attempt upon Glock Sr.,
Harper had no cause to doubt Glock Sr.'s explanation.
75.

Harper accepted Glock Sr.'s assignment to defeat "Ewert's

embezzlement scheme" and, secondarily, to guide the Glock Structure through the
plethora of then-pending and anticipated investigations regarding legal and tax
compliance.

A.

Scope of the Harper Team's Engagement
76.

In or about August 2000, Glock Sr. and Glock Inc. retained Harper

to defeat Eweli's embezzlement scheme and to bring the Glock Structure into legal
and tax compliance.

- 20-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 24 of 74

77.

The scope of Harper's engagement for Glock Sr. developed into an

investigation involving activities in Luxembourg, Ireland, Panama, Curacao, the
United States, Hong Kong, Turkey, and other jurisdictions across the world.
78.

Harper was given "carte blanche" authority by Glock Sr. to

accomplish the goals of the investigation. Harper retained the services of over a
dozen lawyers, accountants, security personnel, and other professionals in the
United States and internationally to accomplish this assignment.
79.

Glock Sr. told Harper he had not known about the embezzlement /

tax fraud schemes; Glock Sr. blamed Ewert.
80.

Part of Harper's responsibility was to liaise with law enforcement

for purposes of disclosing information on Ewert and the Glock Structure for
purposes of prosecuting Ewert.
81.

Consequently, the strategy for combating Ewert's designs partially

depended upon Harper's credibility with law enforcement in the United States who
Harper, on Glock Sr.'s behalf, would supply with evidence of Ewert's culpability.
82.

Harper accepted the Glock engagement upon the express condition

that Glock Sr. authorize Harper to fully cooperate with the federal law enforcement
authorities.

- 21 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 25 of 74

83.

Harper took the case on the conditions that Glock S1'., Glock Inc.,

and the Glock Structure fully cooperate with his investigation and that they give
him authority to share openly, candidly, and completely what he leatned with the
FBI, IRS, and other government and cOUlt-appointed authorities who were or
would be conducting investigations of Ewert's embezzlement and the face value
tax fraud and money laundering schemes. Glock S1'., as well as agents of Glock
Inc., Consultinvest, and other Glock Structure agents agreed to these conditions.
84.

With Glock Sr.'s knowledge and approval Harper hired a team of

professionals - lawyers, CPAs, security personnel, experts in funds tracing, and
SUppOlt staff - to meet the needs of his ever-expanding investigation involving
operations in Luxembourg, Ireland, Panama, Curayao, the United States, Hong
Kong, Turkey, and other places.
85.

Glock S1'. strictly limited the persons within the Glock Structure

who had knowledge of the activities of Harper's investigation. He instructed
Harper to limit his communications within the Glock Structure to Glock Sr. and
certain of his most trusted advisors. Harper complied with this request.
B.

Billing Rates and Terms

86.

Glock Sr. instructed Harper to negotiate his billing rates, expenses,

and other billing terms with Paul Jannuzzo ("Jannuzzo").
- 22-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 26 of 74

87.

Jannuzzo was a long-time Glock Inc. lawyer and trusted personal

confidante of Glock Sr. Jannuzzo reported directly to Glock Sr., himself.
88.

Harper was instructed by Glock Sr. to submit all bills for the

investigation to J annuzzo for approval and payment.
89.

Upon information and belief, Harper complied with this

instruction.
90.

Likewise, Harper's bills were handled with minimal disclosure to

regular Glock Inc. staff.
91.

Regarding Harper's investigation, Jannuzzo was directed by Glock

Sr. that cost was "no object" and that Jannuzzo should not do anything to impede
the progress of Harper's investigation.
92.

Glock Sr. had access to Harper's bills, either by direct request to

Harper or through Jannuzzo.
93.

From late 2000 to March of 2003, Harper submitted bills to

Jannuzzo for review and payment and in accordance with Glock Sr. 's instructions.
94.

Jannuzzo reviewed, approved, directed payment on, and kept

confidential Harper' s bills, all in accordance with Glock Sr.' s instructions.
95.

In early 2003, Jannuzzo and Glock Sr. had a personal disagreement

and falling out. Jannuzzo resigned his employment from Glock Inc. and, later,
- 23 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 27 of 74

from Consultinvest. Upon information and belief, Jannuzzo left Harper's bills at
Glock Inc.'s offices.
C.

Harper's Investigation Succeeds Regarding Ewert But Also Uncovers
Evidence Pointing to Complicity of Glock Sr.

96.

From 2000 until March of 2003, Harper's investigation was

intensive.
97.

Harper and his team uncovered that, until July 27, 1999, Glock Sr.

and Ewert used the Glock Structure to launder a portion of Glock Inc. revenues
through "face value" schemes that were unlawful. These schemes involved
transfers of approximately $103,260,000 through phony marketing and "suppOli"
companies, and transfers of additional millions through Consultinvest in that:
(a)

Glock Ges.m.b.H., an Austrian company owned directly or
indirectly by Glock Sr., would atiificially mis-allocate distribution
of its guns among three companies within the Glock Structure:
Glock Inc., Glock America, N.V. (South America) ("Glock
America"), and Glock (H.K.) Limited (Hong Kong) ("Glock HK").

(b)

For no legitimate reason, Glock Ges.m.b.H. would charge Glock
Inc. higher prices than it charged Glock America and Glock HK.

- 24-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 28 of 74

(c)

Glock America and Glock HK would "sell" most of their
allocations, which they had no reasonable expectation of selling in
their territories, to Glock Inc. at artificially inflated prices.

(d)

Glock America and Glock HK would "pay" the difference, or some
portion of the difference, in the prices to phony marketing
compames.

Glock America "paid" Taziria Holding, A.V.V.

("Taziria") and Glock HK"paid" Minami Enterprises Limited
("Minami") for non-existent marketing services. In this fashion,
through July 1999, Minami skimmed in excess of$19.75 million
and Taziria skimmed in excess of $20.5 million.
(e)

From Taziria and Minami, the funds would be funneled into other
contrived shell companies having no real or legitimate business
purpose. Taziria and Minami would transfer the proceeds to other
bank accounts including the accounts of Reo fin International, S.A.
("Reofin"), a Panamanian company.

(f)

Reofin would use the proceeds for various purposes such as to
effect additional tax fraud schemes including, without limitation,
funding loans to Consultinvest for the purchase of the land and
buildings comprising the Glock Structure's North America
- 25 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 29 of 74

headquarters in Smyrna, Georgia. Consultinvest would collect
rents from Glock Inc. pursuant to leases and thereafter claim
fictitious "interest" deductions in tax filings.
(g)

The schemes also involved "paying" a company, BTE, for nonexistent "technical suppOli" with funds received from the
distribution companies.

98.

Harper's investigation implicated Eweli in these schemes, which

appeared to violate various laws against tax evasion, money laundering, etc., but
also raised questions regarding the participation of Glock Sr.
99.

Early on, Harper learned Glock Structure monies were involved in

the ownership of a Turkish bank with money-laundering and terrorist connections.
This development strengthened Harper's belief that his work would require open,
candid, and complete transparency with the FBI, the IRS, and other law
enforcement agencies.
100.

Initially, Glock Sr. and the Glock Structure agreed to and ratified

Harper's strategy of cooperating with federal law enforcement and tax authorities.
101.

In early winter of 2001, Glock Sr. personally attended a meeting

with Harper and a special agent of the IRS as well as an assistant U.S. attorney in
the office of the NOlihern District of Georgia.
- 26 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 30 of 74

102.

During that meeting, the federal agents were emphatic that Glock

Sr.' s full cooperation was required and that they were to follow the evidence
"wherever it led."
103.

Glock Sr. agreed and, following the meeting, confirmed with

Harper his instructions to proceed in full cooperation with the federal authorities,
including the U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, and IRS.
104.

Harper's investigation yielded outstanding results

111

line with

Glock Sr. 's instructions to, in essence, "get Ewert."
105.

In 2001, Harper retained Plaintiff, a lawyer with expenence

ill

complex commercial litigation, for purposes of assisting with special projects and
litigation strategy. At first, Harper asked Plaintiff to assist him with projects
associated with Ewert's embezzlement scheme. In 2002, Harper tasked Plaintiff
with developing a legal strategy to defeat Ewert's claim to Taziria, a company
within the Glock Structure that was then under the control of Ewert.
D.

Harper's Team Facilitates Investigation of Competing Claims to
Ownership over Unipatent
106.

After the failed assassination attempt, Eweli claimed ownership of

Unipatent, a Luxembourg company within the Glock Structure.
107.

According to Ewert, Unipatent owned two (phony) marketing

companies (Taziria and Minami), a "support" company (BTE), Consultinvest, a
- 27 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 31 of 74

half interest in Glock Inc, and interests in Glock America, Glock HK, and other
compames.
108.

Glock Sr. denied that Unipatent owned the phony marketing and

"suppOli" companies but he acknowledged that Unipatent owned Consultinvest, a
half interest in Glock Inc., and interests in other entities in the Glock Structure, too.
109.

To decide the competing claims between Ewert and Glock Sr. over

Unipatent's ownership, a Luxembourg cOUli appointed Jacques Delvaux
("Delvaux"), a public notary, to administer Unipatent while Glock Sr. and Ewert
contested its ownership.
110.

Delvaux hired PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to apply agreed-

upon procedures relating to an investigation of transactions in Unipatent to assist
Delvaux in determining whether there had been any misappropriation of
Unipatent's assets.
111.

Delvaux also had the power to recommend to the Luxembourg

cOUli which of Glock Sr. or Eweli owned Unipatent. As such PwC was tasked with
gathering information from representatives of both Glock Sr. and Ewert, with the
Harper team of investigators facilitating this effort on behalf of Glock Sr. and
Glock Sr. 's claim regarding Unipatent.

- 28 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 32 of 74

112.

Harper assigned two members of his team, Michael Stresser and

Paul Phelan, ("Phelan") to provide to PwC the information gained through
Harper's investigation. Glock Sr. knew of and approved this strategy.
113.

Harper communicated directly with Glock Sr. regarding the

investigation and his progress including his communications with PwC.
Periodically Harper initiated discussions with Glock Sr. and his designated
advisors about the investigation.
114.

Harper also communicated with Glock Sr. regarding the costs of

the investigation. After one meeting, Harper raised the issue of the growing
demands of the investigation and the resulting increases in his monthly bills and
expenses. Glock Sr. cut Harper off with a wave of his hand, saying in words or
substance: "You're doing good work. It costs what it costs."

E.

Harper Discovers the Adaptation of Ewert's Glock Structure
Schemes by Glock Sr.
115.

As the investigation proceeded, Harper lean1ed that the Glock

Structure had operated the face value tax fraud and embezzlement schemes set out
above. Consequently, as early as November 1, 2000, Harper warned Glock Sr. in
writing of the potential disaster if these issues were not addressed, remedied, and
cleared with the appropriate legal authorities.

- 29-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 33 of 74

116.

Unknown to Harper, although Glock Sr. outwardly indicated his

agreement with Harper's admonitions and concerns, behind the scenes Glock Sr.
was planning to cement his control over, and then perpetuate, Ewert's face value
scheme for the Glock Structure instead of cleaning it up.
117.

After Ewert's assassination attempt, Glock HK and Minami quietly

were "cloned" at Glock Sr.'s direction. To do this, Glock Sr. directed his Austrian
lawyer, Johann Quendler, ("Quendler") to form new companies with the same
names as, but in different jurisdictions from, the pre-existing companies and
directed the Glock Ges.m.b.H. production "quota" to the new Glock HK. Glock,
Sr. then had the cloned Glock HK re-direct funds to the new Minami.
118.

As the Harper team's investigation progressed, Harper determined

that he needed to review the records of Glock HK and Minami. Harper requested
access to these records. At the time, Harper thought there was only one Glock HK
and one Minami; he had not leall1ed of the cloned ones.
119.

Quendler advised Glock Sr. to deny Harper access to the records.

120.

Glock Sr. overruled Quendler and approved Harper's request.

121.

Harper directed one of his team associates to fly to Hong Kong and

return with the records.

- 30 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 34 of 74

122.

Upon reviewing the records from Hong Kong, it was evident to

Harper that the company had been cloned. He also discovered that Glock Sr., with
Quendler's help, had adapted and continued the face value schemes previously
thought to be perpetrated solely by Ewert. Specifically, Harper discovered that
Glock Sr. had personally signed phony invoices for the cloned Minami in 1999,
2000, and 2001.
123.

In August of 2002, Harper held a face-to-face meeting with Glock

Sr. and his Austrian lawyer, Quendler. Harper showed them the records and
explained to them that the clone-and-adapt activity was an unlawful scheme.
124.

At first, Quendler pretended he did not understand andlor tried to

deflect Harper's questions. Quendler turned to Glock Sr., speaking German so the
Americans could not understand.
125.

Glock Sr. grinned, then instructed Quendler to acknowledge to

Harper what they had done, saying words to the effect that "you might as well tell
them ... they are going to find out anyway."
126.

Immediately, Quendler dropped his pretense. In English, he

admitted that Glock Sr. and he had set up the cloned companies and had prepared
the phony invoices and supporting bank transfers.

- 31 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 35 of 74

127.

Harper advised Glock Sr. of the legal problems and potential

liabilities regarding this adaptation and continuance of Ewert's scheme. Harper
also advised Glock Sr. that his conduct left him open to serious legal repercussions.
Glock Sr. said he would follow Harper's advice to continue cooperating with both
Harper's investigation and with the strategy of disclosing fully with law
enforcement in order to "clean house." Glock Sr. told Hmver, "Let the chips fall
where they will."
F.

Plaintiff Finds the Missing Link To Defeat Ewert's Embezzlement
Scheme

128.

Ewert maintained influence over key compames

III

the Glock

Structure, including Taziria. This control by Ewert was felt by Glock Sr. and others
to be a threat to maintaining control over the cash-flow from Glock Inc. and its
related entities.
129.

Ewert filed a lawsuit in Curayao to maintain control of Taziria.

130.

In 2002 Harper assigned Plaintiff with responsibility for

developing a strategy to defeat Ewert's claim to Tazaria and, subsequently,
directed Plaintiff to present the strategy in person to Glock Sr. in a meeting at
Glock Inc.'s Smyrna facility.

- 32 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 36 of 74

131.

After the meeting Harper asked Glock Sr. to authorize him to

proceed with Plaintiff's strategy. Glock Sr. authorized Harper and Plaintiff to
proceed.
132.

Ewert claimed that Unipatent owned Taziria. Therefore Delvaux's

appointment as administrator gave him an interest in the lawsuit. Delvaux agreed
to a joint endeavor involving the strategy.
133.

Plaintiff presented the strategy to local counsel and oversaw its

implementation.
134.

The strategy worked. Months later, a Curayao court entered an

order that gave Glock Sr. and Unipatent the sought-after rights to Taziria, which
rights were subject to adjudication of Glock Sr. and Unipatent's competing claim
as the sole owner.
135.

Plaintiff assisted Glock Sr. and Delvaux with the appointment of a

new trustee. This trustee helped Plaintiff obtain Taziria's bank records. Plaintiff
forwarded these records to Phelan, who used them to trace Taziria funds into
numerous Ewert-controlled companies, including an equity contribution in
Em'optima S.A ("Europtima").
136.

Europtima was key to unraveling the Ewert-led embezzlement

scheme. Ewert claimed ownership of Em"optima. He claimed Europtima was an
- 33 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 37 of 74

owner of Unipatent. The bank records showed that Taziria had made equity
contributions to Europtima. Therefore, whoever owned Taziria also was an owner
of Europtima. The Curayao court had awarded Taziria to Glock Sr. and Unipatent.
Therefore, either Glock Sr. or Unipatent was an owner.
137.

Glock S1'. and Delvaux now had the ability to chase Ewert's

embezzlement scheme into Ewert's own backyard. The bank records showed
equity contributions and other payments to several other Ewert companies and
persons of interest. Due to the successful execution of this strategy, the Harper
team's work had begun to untangle Ewert's web of sham, shell companies.
G.

Panama Operation

] 38.

Reofin occupied a special place in the Glock Structure. Tens of

millions of dollars flowed into Reofin's bank accounts through the phony
marketing and "suppOli" companies - Taziria, Minami, and BTE.
]39.

Harper learned that Ewert had exercised control over Reofin and

had used this control to launder tax fraud proceeds.
] 40.

Glock Sr. claimed he owned Reofin. His claim of ownership was

essential to his claim of ownership to Unipatent. This was because Glock Sr.
claimed Reofin owned Unipatent.

- 34 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 38 of 74

141.

Harper determined that Ewert's potential ability to control Reofin,

if left unchecked, could undermine the work on Glock Sr. 's behalf with PwC to
prove Glock Sr.'s ownership ofUnipatent. Harper advised Glock Sr. of the threat.
Glock S1'. authorized Harper to develop and execute a strategy in Panama.
142.

Harper developed a strategy to seek the assistance of the Panama

Attorney General as well as to create corporate documentation of Glock S1'.'s
ownership of Reofin.
143.

Harper hired two local Panamanians to assist with this strategy.

Joselin Avendano,("Avendano") a Panama lawyer, joined Harper's team. A private
investigator, Sixto Saavendra, also joined.
144.

Harper learned that the Panama Attorney General would require

Glock S1'. to appear in person and swear to the fact of his ownership of Reo fin.
145.

Harper determined that this requirement would pose a dilemma for

Glock Sr, in part because of apparently false or misleading testimony Glock Sr.
had previously given under oath.
146.

Specifically, on September 18, 1995, Glock Sr. had testified under

oath that he did not know who owned Unipatent. This was not the only time Glock
S1'. had falsely testified on the now-crucial issue ofUnipatent's true ownership.

- 35 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 39 of 74

147.

On March 2, 1998, Glock Sr. had also testified falsely at another

deposition for a case then pending in a court in South Carolina. Glock Sr. again
falsely testified that he did not own Unipatent.
148.

Glock Sr.'s earlier false testimony appeared designed to conceal

from discovery the role of Reo fin in the Glock Structure unlawful scheme.
149.

However, the competing claims to Unipatent now forced Glock Sr.

to choose between losing control over the Glock Structure or testifying to the truth
about Unipatent's ownership by Reofin, even at the risk of the perjury being
exposed.
150.

During a face-to-face meeting, Harper advised Glock Sr. his

truthful testimony in Panama would conflict with his earlier testimony. Harper also
explained to Glock Sr. that he risked losing his claim to Unipatent and its interests
in the Glock Structure and the other companies if he did not truthfully testify that
he owned Reofin.
151.

In February of2003, Glock Sr. traveled to Panama and gave sworn

testimony to the Panama Attorney General that he owned Reofin. Based on this
testimony and Harper's investigative work (and that of his team), the Panama
Attorney General decided to indict Ewert.

- 36 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 40 of 74

152.

Harper arranged for payment of the entire cost of the Panama trip

out of collections from his prior billings. These costs were part of the bills Harper
submitted for payment after he quit the investigation in March of 2003. Harper was
never paid for them.
153.

Glock Sr. later testified he owned Unipatent in direct contradiction

of his testimony in the 1995 and 1998 depositions. For example in June 2004,
Glock S1'. signed a sworn statement that Ewert sold him 100 percent of Reofin in
1987 and, fmiher, that Reofin acquired the Luxembourgish company, Unipatent, a
company Glock Sr. also claimed to own.
154.

In 2002, Harper's work led to the re-incarceration of Ewert

pending trial in Luxembourg on pre-existing criminal charges arising out of
Eweli's attempted assassination of Glock Sr.
155.

Harper's strategy-ratified by Glock Sr. and the Glock Structure-

of cooperating and aiding goVe111ment authorities who were also investigating
Eweli led to a sealed indictment on or about November 5, 2002 against Eweli for
financial crimes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.
156.

The work of Harper's team also facilitated a Panamanian

indictment of Ewert on or about February of2003.
- 37 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 41 of 74

157.

Harper's investigation also resulted in the identification of

approximately $103,260,000 of proceeds involved in Ewert's schemes and the
tracing of approximately $32,765,000 of these proceeds for their anticipated
recovery by Glock Sr. and / or the Glock Structure.
158.

Glock Sr. praised Harper and his team for these results and

specifically instructed those approving the periodic payments for Harper's
investigation to do nothing to impede the work Harper and his team were doing to
aid in implicating Ewert in the schemes involving the Glock entites.
159.

Unbeknownst to Harper, however, Glock Sr. himself had been

misleading with regard to his intentions. Glock Sr.'s expressions of support for
Harper's strategy of cooperating with law enforcement authorities were about to
evaporate.

VI.
160.

GLOCK SR.'S REVERSAL OF POSITION

In early March 2003, Glock Sr. suddenly reversed his position,

directing one of his lawyers, Quendler, to write Harper with the instruction that all
future work must be submitted to Glock Sr., effectively revoking Harper's
previously-agreed authority to communicate and cooperate openly and candidly
with various government and court-appointed authorities.

- 38 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 42 of 74

161.

On or about March 13,2003, Ewert was convicted by a court in

Luxembourg for his role in the assault upon Glock Sr.

Eweli's conviction

cemented Glock Sr.'s complete reversal of Glock Sr.'s intentions regarding
Harper's investigation.
162.

Once Ewert was convicted in March of 2003, Harper noticed a

complete reversal of Glock Sr.'s attitude towards Harper's investigation and the
plan to cooperate with law enforcement authorities in the United States and abroad
in cleaning up the compliance issues plaguing the corporate structure of Glock Inc.
and its related corporate entities.
163.

Rather than cease the schemes put in place by Ewert, Glock Sr. had

adapted and continued them following Eweli's betrayal. Now, rather than "come
clean," Glock Sr. appeared poised to conceal and even perpetuate the
embezzlement and tax fraud schemes formerly run by Eweli.
164.

Harper realized Glock Sr. did not intend to bring the Glock

Structure into legal compliance.
165.

Harper notified Quendler and Glock Sr. of his intent to cease

actively pursuing the investigation in late March 2003.

- 39 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 43 of 74

A.

Harper's Unpaid Bills

166.

When Harper stopped working on the investigation, he was owed a

substantial sum for services rendered but not yet paid.
167.

Glock Sr. demanded that Harper submit to an audit of his bills by

Glock Sr. 's Austrian accountants. Harper agreed.
168.

On April 15, 2003 the Austrian auditors issued a report, the

"Poschel Report," concluding Harper and his team had cooperated and showing
Harper was owed a substantial balance on his bills.
169.

Glock Sr. and the Glock Structure concealed the results of the

Poschel Report from Harper.
B.

Criminal Complaint Made Against Harper

170.

In the wake of his falling out with Paul Jannuzzo, Glock Sr.

replaced Jannuzzo with Renzulli as the CEO of Consultinvest.
171.

In October 2003, Glock Sr.'s personal lawyer for many years,

Peter Manown ("Manown"), confessed to Renzulli he had been stealing from
Glock Sr. Manown disclosed that his thefts involved accounts he had managed for
Glock Sr.

- 40 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 44 of 74

172.

The Enterprise capitalized upon Manown's confession of criminal

conduct as a false pretext for a campaign to discredit and ruin not only J annuzzo
but Harper and (later) Plaintiff.
173.

Defendants, Glock Sr., and the Glock Structure retained Deichert,

an Atlanta lawyer, and assigned him the task of instituting criminal prosecutions
against not only Manown but Paul J annuzzo and Harper.
174.

Glock Sr. and Defendants knowingly and deliberately conspired

with the above-named State Actors, acting under color of state law, to tamper with
evidence, influence witnesses, and cause a wrongful apprehension / arrest /
malicious prosecution, all in furtherance of the goals of the Enterprise.
175.

In June of 2006 Glock Sr., and Defendants Glock Inc.,

Consultinvest, Renzulli and Deichert filed a criminal complaint with the FBI
against Manown and Jannuzzo.
176.

Manown's case was assigned to the U.S. Attorney for the Middle

District of Georgia. Manown accepted a plea bargain and a prison sentence of
twenty two months.
177.

Glock Sr., Defendants, and the Glock Structure directed Renzulli

and Deichert to file a criminal complaint against Manown, Jannuzzo, and Harper

- 41 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 45 of 74

with the City of Smyrna, Georgia. In June of 2007 Renzulli and Deicheli filed the
complaint.
178.

On or about July 23, 2007, Deichert, acting in his capacity as agent

and attOl11ey for Defendants and Glock Sr., delivered a letter to Smyrna intended to
support such a criminal prosecution that, among other things, falsely stated:
(a)

that Harper's investigation of the Glock Structure was limited to
activities in the United States when, in reality, its scope spanned
world-wide;

(b)

that Harper billed for work never performed and overbilling for
work performed;

(c)

that Harper wrote a "false exculpatory e-mail" to Avendano
regarding Harper's unpaid bills for the Panama Operation;

(d)

that Harper was dismissed by the Glock Structure,

instead of

quitting his investigation;
(e)

that Harper had uncovered criminal activity by Manown and
Jannuzzo and entered a conspiracy with them whereby Manown
and Januzzo would pay Harper in exchange for covering up their
crimes when Harper had not and, instead, had uncovered criminal

- 42-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 46 of 74

activity implicating Glock Sf., a fact omitted from Deichert's letter
and
(f)

that the Glock Structure had discovered these "findings" of
alleged misconduct by Harper and this was the reason Glock had
"dismissed" Harper.

179.

All of the above statements

111

Deichert's letter were untrue,

misleading, and part of the Enterprise's plan to target and injure Harper.
180.

Deicheli sent the above letter at the behest of, and as an agent of,

Glock Sr., Defendants, the Enterprise, and the Glock Structure.
C.

Glock Sr., Glock Inc., Renzulli, Deichert, and Core Fabricate a
Malicious Prosecution of Both Harper and Plaintiff
181.

The Enterprise's complaint was assigned to Officer Harrison of the

Smyrna Police Depmiment.
182.

In late 2007 or early 2008, Glock Sf., Glock Inc., and/or

Consultinvest hired Core, another attorney, to manage, supervise, and control
Harrison in the pursuit of the false arrest and prosecution of Harper and Plaintiff.
183.

Glock, Sr. and the Enterprise became dissatisfied with the progress

in the federal criminal case in part because, upon information and belief, the FBI
refused to share with them the content of its interview of Man own.

- 43 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 47 of 74

184.

Sometime in 2006 or 2007, Glock Sr., Glock Inc., Consultinvest,

Renzulli, and Deichert recruited the Cobb County District Attorney to get the
Manown case transferred fi'om the U.S. Attorney. In a highly unusual move, Cobb
County D.A. Patrick Head ("D.A. Head") obtained a transfer of the case. After the
transfer of his case, Manown negotiated a plea bargain with D.A. Head. Instead of
the federal sentence of twenty two months, Manown's plea deal was sweetened to
mere probation.
185.

The Cobb County D.A. scheduled a proffer of Manown on October

17, 2007. In another highly unusual move, the Cobb County D.A. permitted
Renzulli, identified as a witness in the Smyrna Complaint, to control the proffer
and questioning of Man own.
186.

At the proffer, Renzulli repeatedly tried to maneuver Manown into

implicating Harper. But Manown denied that Harper had stolen anything or had
engaged in any criminal acts.
187.

Instead of implicating Harper, Manown's testimony implicated

Glock Sr. as "a bad guy" who "bribes people." This angered Renzulli.
188.

Upon information and belief, none of the State Actors present at

the Manown proffer ever investigated Manown's testimony of Glock Sr. 's
criminali ty.
- 44-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 48 of 74

D.

Harper's Investigative Files

189.

On August 30, 2007, Smyrna and Harrison obtained three boxes of

records of Harper's investigation from a former member of Harper's team as well
as a black ring binder labeled "Glock worldwide distributor list", a black ring
labeled binder "Examination mission based on agreed upon procedures" and dated
11/8/2000, and a maroon notebook regarding Ewert activities. These binders held

information relating to the tax-fraud schemes and also showed work performed by
Harper and his team as set out in his bills.
190.

Smyrna has been unable to return these boxes, records, binders,

and notebook. Upon information and belief, these documents have been tampered,
altered with, and 1 or destroyed by the Enterprise.
VII. THE ENTERPRISE CONSPIRES WITH, DIRECTS, AND
CONTROLS STATE ACTORS
191.

Through his proxies, Glock Sr. controlled the flow of information

from himself and the Glock Structure to Harrison and Butters. Specifically,
Deichert, Rennzulli and Core directed and controlled the criminal prosecution of
Harper and Plaintiff.
192.

The

State

Actors-Butters

and

Harrison-entered

into

a

conspiracy with the Enterprise, and became pati of the Enterprise for purposes of
facilitating an extensive and comprehensive campaign of evidence tampering.
- 45 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 49 of 74

193.

The State Actors were aware the Enterprise had destroyed key

evidence that would compromise any prosecution of Plaintiff.

When Harrison

became interested in a Glock Inc. wire transfer record from 1997, he was informed
by Core as follows: "The records at Glock Inc. were shredded up until 2002 so we
don't have Glock Inc. records sending that wire."
194.

Harper's investigation for Glock Sr. continued from 2000 until

March 26, 2003. Defendants falsely claimed that Harper's overbilling and billing
for services not rendered began in 2000 and that this activity was discovered in
May 2003. Evidence exposing these claims as false would have existed in the
Glock Inc. records from 2000 through 2002 that were shredded and destroyed.
195.

Those records may also have included Harper's November 1,2000

Risk Analysis and letter to Glock Sr. and Glock Inc. These records describe in
detail Harper's early discoveries in the investigation and instructions to Glock Sr.
including, without limitation, Harper's statement that "[b]ased on the evidence we
now have, we must proceed with another mission as well, to protect you [Glock
Sr.] and your company from the inevitable counter offensive by Ewert and the
possible inquiry by foreign and U.S. officials" and also that "the u.S. government
will adopt our explanation of the evidence and stick with it
open and honest." (Emphasis added.)

- 46-

if we

continue to be

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 50 of 74

196.

Glock Inc. generated the majority of the revenues of the Glock

Structure in the 1999-2001 time period. A portion of these revenues was
transferred through the face value tax-fraud schemes as adapted and continued by
Glock Sr. and the Glock Structure during this timeframe. False and fraudulent
invoices and other records going to and coming from Glock Inc. would have
existed as part of these schemes.
197.

Glock Sr. and the Enterprise withheld from Harrison and Butters

the extensive records of Harper's investigation that would have: (a) described the
terms of Harper's engagement with Glock Sr. and the Glock Structure; (b)
supported a defense of the Plaintiff to any criminal prosecution for "overbilling";
(c) implicated Glock Sr. and the Glock Structure in various crimes; and / or (d)
supported the work descriptions, time entries, and expenses set out in Harper's
bills.
198.

Documents withheld (or destroyed) by the Enterprise from the

State Actors with the intent of causing injury to the Plaintiff include, without
limitation:
(a)

Harper's Risk Analysis, dated November 1,2000;

(b)

Harper's letter to Glock Sr. sent c/o Jannuzzo and dated
November 1, 2000;
- 47-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 51 of 74

(c)

records proving up the Glock Structure scheme involving
Consultinvest's purchase of the land and building comprising the
Glock Structure's NOlih American headquarters in Smyrna;

(d)

records proving up Glock Sr.'s complicity in the clone-and-adapt
activities to continue the Glock Structure schemes even after
Ewert's assassination attempt;

(e)

the ninety five page PwC First Report, dated October 25,2002,
raising numerous questions about the commercial relationships
within the Glock Structure, including the fact that "significant
payments were made to external companies whereas there is no
clear evidence of services having been rendered by these
counterparts; "

(f)

the twenty page PwC Second Report (draft) detailing the face
value tax-fraud schemes, the tracing of proceeds involved in the
same, the fact PwC's review of marketing costs was based upon
information provided by "GG's lawyers," i.e. were the work of
Harper and his team, and concluding "the provision of Invoicing
Companies [Base Technical, Glock HK, and Glock America in

- 48 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 52 of 74

the Glock Structure] had no economic substance but were only
driven by tax reasons;" and
(g)

numerous e-mails prepared by Plaintiff and copied to Glock Sr.'s
attOlney in Luxembourg at Glock Sr.'s specific request regarding
the activities to defeat Ewert's embezzlement scheme in Curayao
and the subsequent uses of this important information.

199.

In addition to concealing the above information and documents,

the Enterprise, especially Core, prepared numerous false accountings of Harper's
bills by selectively removing celtain bills and time periods of bills from the
accountings to make it appear that payments exceeded billings on specific dates
and during specific time periods.
VIII. INDICTMENT, FALSE ARREST AND RESOLUTION IN FAVOR OF
PLAINTIFF
200.

From May 2009 through January 2010 Renzulli and Core drafted

the Indictment for use by Butters and Officer Harrison.
201.

Core, Officer Harrison, and Butters prepared a misleading "chait"

for Officer Harrison to use with his grand jury testimony in order to obtain an
indictment of Plaintiff. Officer Harrison used this chart as an aid to his false
testimony before the grand jury.

- 49-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 53 of 74

202.

On January 22, 2010, armed officers acting in concert with the

Enterprise arrested Plaintiff at his home and in front of his wife and young
children. Armed officers also arrested Harper.
203.

Plaintiff was named as a co-defendant in three of the ten false and

fabricated Counts and a conspiracy Count.
204.

All of the charges against Plaintiff were fabricated based on the

falsified evidence, influenced witnesses, evidence either destroyed or withheld by
the Glock Structure and Enterprise, and misleading statements of Glock, Sr. and
Defendants along with those of Harrison and Butters, including, without limitation:
(a)

falsified records of the terms of Harper's engagement with Glock
Sr. and the Glock Structure;

(b)

selective review of Harper's bills and payments against these bills;
and

(c)

double-counting funds paid against Harper's bills as Glock
Structure money.

205.

In November 2012, the voters of Cobb County, Georgia elected a

new District Attorney.
206.

On March 14, 2013, the new Cobb County D.A. dropped all

charges against Harper and Plaintiff.
- 50 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 54 of 74

IX. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE OF ENTERPRISE CONSPIRACY WITH
STATE ACTORS BUTTERS AND OFFICER HARRISON FOR PURPOSES
OF EVIDENCE- AND WITNESS-TAMPERING
207.

In conspiracy with the Enterprise, Butters and Officer Harrison

concealed and withheld dozens of e-mails, attachments, and records from Harper
and Plaintiff while they were under indictment including, without limitation:
(a)

a copy of an exculpatory e-mail from Harper to a Panamanian
lawyer who assisted on the Panama Operation in which Harper, in
2003, instructed the Panamanian lawyer to "share everything with
Glock if they ask";

(b)

records showing the transfer to Glock S1'., Defendants, the Glock
Structure, and the Enterprise from the evidence room of the
Smyrna Police Department of three boxes of records of Harper's
investigation
worldwide

as well as a black ring binder labeled "Glock
distributor

list",

a

black

nng

binder

labeled

"Examination mission based on agreed upon procedures" and
dated 11/8/2000 and a maroon notebook regarding Ewert activities,
all of which were material documents that have not been accounted
for since and, upon information and belief, were destroyed by the

- 51 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 55 of 74

Enterprise for the purposes of prejudicing Plaintiff s defense
and/or protecting the Glock Structure;
(c)

dozens of communications between Core, Hanison and Butters
showing the following:
(i)

Core's instructions to Han'ison and Butters to obtain and
transfer to Core and the Enterprise records obtainable
only under color of state law;

(ii)

Officer Harrison and Butters' compliance with these
instructions; and

(iii) Core's unsupervised access to, and control over, these
records, Upon information and belief, some of these
records have not been accounted for since and, upon
information and belief, were destroyed by the Enterprise
with the intent of prejudicing Plaintiff s defense;
(d)

a June 9, 2008 e-mail in which Core suggested to Butters and
Hanison the charges against Plaintiff were weak ("I don't think we
will wind up wanting to charge [Plaintiff]"), approximately
eighteen (18) months before the Enterprise obtained the indictment
of Plaintiff;
- 52 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 56 of 74

(e)

Core's e-mail dated March 21,2011 to Butters, Harrison, and the
State's supposed expert witness against Plaintiff expressing worry
that wire transfer payments for work performed by the Harper team
"line[d] up with the bills" and that Core's own accountings
suggested the alleged "over billings" were cancelled out by "under
billings";

(f)

Core's instructions via e-mail to Butters and Harrison on how to
prepare the State's supposed expeli witness against Plaintiff in
which Core directed Butters and Officer Harrison to instruct the
expert against mentioning Core's role in his preparation but, if
directly asked, that the witness "should just state that [Core is]
Glock counsel and ha[s] been working with you. No more than
that." FUliher, Core instructed Butters and Harrison the expert
witness should not divulge "any communications with me, you, or
Keith" [Harrison] because such communications were "work
product and attorney client privileged";

(g)

e-mail suggesting the extent of the State Actors' complicity in
influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence, to wit:
Core's e-mail to Butters demanding Butters obtain and share with
- 53 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 57 of 74

Core the tax returns of a witness and former member of Harper's
investigative team, Paul Phelan, so he could "break" him after
Phelan made statements favorable to Harper and Plaintiff s defense
during an interview with Officer Harrison;
(h)

Officer Harrison and Core's e-mail exchanges on May 15,2009
regarding Han-ison's admission that he left files "at the plant" and
is looking for "Pombert's physical file" and "bank records"
because he "can't find" them (upon information and belief, the
"plant" is code for Glock's corporate offices in Smyrna);

(i)

an e-mail by Core to Butters, Officer Harrison, and the State's
expert witness that attached a "witness spread sheet" file in which
Core tells them "This will be our trial guide," evincing the control
exercised by Core and the Enterprise over the State Actors and the
malicious prosecution of the Plaintiff;

U)

Core's e-mail dated September 2,2010 containing instructions on
how the State Actors should conduct a potential proffer of
Plaintiff;

(k)

an e-mail by Core to Butters and Officer Han-ison dated December
10, 2009 stating that Mathis, a witness, "completely understands
- 54-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 58 of 74

the case, to include those acts he did previously did not know
about" and that Core "is no longer concerned, but I would still like
to downplay the 'witness' label. Almost all of his income is now
derived from Glock, therefore he will always come when
directed'" ,

(1)

e-mails showing the Enterprise, not Butters or Officer Harrison,
were controlling the production of documents in the criminal
prosecution of Harper and Plaintiff, including discussions of
"somehow lost" documents not included in an earlier document
production to Plaintiff;

(m)

numerous Core e-mails to Butters and Officer Harrison showing
that Core was selecting the records the Enterprise wanted in the
State's files and that Core was interviewing witnesses the State
Actors never interviewed and instructing witnesses to interview
other witnesses.

(n)

e-mail in which Core demanded Officer Harrison circulate to him a
transcription of a witness interview, ending "Gimmee, gimmee ... ";

- 55 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 59 of 74

(0)

numerous e-mails from Core to Butters and Harrison revealing
Core's many guesses at "facts" and subsequent admissions these
theories were incorrect and/or unsuppOlied by any evidence;

(p)

numerous accountings prepared by Core and delivered to Officer
Harrison and Butters revealing the selective use of Harper's bills
and payments to create false and fictitious "overbillings"; and

(q)

numerous e-mails and attachments during the period May 2009
and January 2010 prepared by Core and sent to Butters and Officer
Harrison discussing drafts of the Indictment against Harper and
Plaintiff and attaching drafts of the Indictment.

208.

The above evidence of ongoing, deliberate, and coordinated

evidence tampering, witness influencing, and malicious prosecution was only
obtained subsequent to the nolle prosequi of Harper and Plaintiff through requests
for documents under Georgia's Open Records Act. These documents were not
disclosed by the State Actors or the Enterprise during the actual criminal
prosecution of Harper and Plaintiff notwithstanding a legal (and constitutional)
duty to do so and no bona fide claim of "attorney-client privilege" sometimes
bogusly claimed in e-mails amongst the conspirators.

- 56 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 60 of 74

X.
209.

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

At all relevant times, the Enterprise was acting within the scope of

its employment for and as the agents of Defendants.
210.

Defendants are liable to Plaintiff, jointly and severally, under the

principle of respondeat superior for any damages arising out of the acts undertaken
and committed against Plaintiff by agents named as the Enterprise who were under
their employ and/or control and where acting in their name and on their behalf.
COUNT ONE:
CONSPIRACY FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
211.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein the

allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-210 as if fully restated hereinafter.
212.

A common understanding existed between the State Actors and the

Enterprise, forming an unlawful conspiracy with said State Actors to deprive
Plaintiff of his constitutional rights under color of state law.
213.

Beginning in or around June 21, 2007 and continuing through on

or about March 15, 2013, in Cobb County, Defendants, Glock Sr., the Glock
Structure, and the Enterprise formed a common understanding with the State
Actors (Officer Harrison and Butters) to take certain unlawful and improper
actions such that the State Actors, under color of state law, would target Plaintiff in
order to deprive him of his rights under the United States Constitution.
- 57 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 61 of 74

214.

The Enterprise, together with the State Actors, entered into a

conspiracy that, acting in concert, agreed to commit unlawful acts and by unlawful
means to inflict injury upon Plaintiff.

The Enterprise committed overt acts

resulting in damage to Plaintiff with the purpose of furthering the Enterprise's
goals of injuring him.
215.

The object of this conspIracy was to violate the constitutional

rights of Plaintiff to be secure in his person, house, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, to -violate the right of the people that no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, to violate Plaintiffs right to due
process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment, to violate his right to be tried
upon evidence that is unmanipulated, and to violate his right to be tried using
witnesses that are uninfluenced by improper means.
216.

The Enterprise controlled, directed, intertwined, and intermingled

themselves with State Actors who were clothed with state authority to investigate
and prosecute crimes. This control and intertwined relationship was such that,
although the Enterprise was composed of private individuals or entities, the acts of
the State Actors were fairly chargeable to the Enterprise as if they were agent and
principal.

- 58 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 62 of 74

217.

Officer Harrison and Butters were at all relevant times public

officials, state actors, and employees of Smyrna and the Cobb County District
Attorney's office, respectively, acting in concert with and under the control of and
at the direction of Defendants, Glock Sr., the Glock Structure, and the Enterprise.
218.

Although Defendants, Glock Sr., the Glock Structure, and the

Enterprise were ostensibly private actors themselves, they were at all relevant
times engaged in state action or in conduct that is fairly attributable to the State
(and vice versa) in that: (1) the deprivation of Plaintiffs civil rights depended upon
a common understanding and conspiracy with the State Actors and was executed
through procedures or authority of the State or by a person for whom the State is
responsible such that the above-named Defendants can fairly be said to have
deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights under color of state law.
219.

Defendants, Glock Sr., and the Enterprise, together with the Glock

Structure, caused a criminal prosecution to be instituted and continued against
Plaintiff with malice and without probable cause.
220.

The criminal prosecution terminated in favor of Plaintiff.

221.

As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered damages

including, without limitation, personal injury, pain, outrage, public humiliation,
shame and anxiety, loss of time from work, and injury to his peace, happiness, and
- 59 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 63 of 74

feelings, damage to his reputation and professional livelihood, lost earnmg
capacity, and attorney fees paid to defend against the underlying criminal
prosecution and investigation of this case.

COUNT TWO:
State Law Claim For Malicious Arrest And Prosecution
222.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein the

allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-221 as if fully restated hereinafter.
223.

With malice but without probable cause, the Defendants caused a

criminal prosecution to be instituted or continued against Plaintiff.
224.

The criminal prosecution terminated in favor of Plaintiff.

225.

As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered damages

including, without limitation, shame, humiliation, anxiety, personal injuries, loss of
time fl.-om work, diminished earning capacity in his profession, embarrassment,
costs of legal defense and investigation expenses, and att0111ey's fees paid in the
investigation and pursuit of this action.

COUNT THREE:
O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(A)
226.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein the

allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-225 as if fully restated hereinafter.

- 60 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 64 of 74

227.

The Enterprise Defendants. engaged in an ongomg pattern of

racketeering activity as defined by Georgia RICO, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(8).
228.

The members of the Enterprise were acting within the scope of

their employment for, and as the agents of, Defendants.
229.

The Georgia RICO pattern of racketeering activity engaged in by

the Enterprise and Defendants consists of more than two acts of racketeering
activity that were ongoing, coordinated, and bent towards a common modus
operandi and objective.

230.

It was part of the conspiracy that some of the Enterprise, aided and

abetted by each other and the State Actors, would knowingly and willfully falsify
documents to conceal or cover up that Harper's bills reflected the rates and terms
of his engagement for his investigation, that Harper billed as agreed, that Harper
earned all of the fees that he was paid, and that he was owed a substantial sum of
money for services rendered when he quit the investigation.
231.

It was

further part of the conspiracy that some of the

coconspirators, aided and abetted by each other, would make false, fictitious, or
fraudulent statements or representations about Harper's services, Harper's bills for
these services, and payments received by Harper against his bills for the
investigation.
- 61 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 65 of 74

232.

It was fmiher part of the conspiracy that some of the Enterprise,

aided and abetted by each other and the State Actors: would (i) communicate with
witnesses threats of injury or damage to the person, property, or employment of the
witnesses, or would offer or deliver a benefit, reward, or consideration to such
witnesses, with intent to deter witnesses from testifying freely, fully, and truthfully
before the grand jury and in the criminal proceedings pending against Harper and
Plaintiff in the Cobb County Superior Court, and (ii) knowingly use intimidation,
physical force, or threats in misleading conduct toward another person with intent
to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of persons before the grand jury and
in the criminal proceedings pending against Harper and Plaintiff in the Cobb
County Superior COUli.
233.

It was fmiher part of the conspiracy that some of the Enterprise,

aided and abetted by each other and the State Actors, would tamper with evidence
with the intent:
(a) to prevent the apprehension of Glock Sr., members of the Glock
Structure and others;
(b) to cause the wrongful apprehension of Plaintiff;
(c) to obstruct the prosecution of Glock Sr., the Glock Structure and
others; and
- 62 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 66 of 74

(d) to obstruct the defense of Plaintiff by knowingly destroying,
altering, concealing, or disguising physical evidence or making,
devising, preparing, or planting false evidence.
234.

It was further part of the conspiracy that some of the Enterprise,

aided and abetted by each other and the State Actors, would plot to discredit,
punish, falsely arrest, and falsely imprison Plaintiff.
235.

It was further pati of the conspiracy that some of the Enterprise,

aided and abetted by each other and the State Actors, would:
(a)

review and selectively extract documents from the books and
records of Defendants, Glock Sr., and the Glock Structure as well
as from the records of Harper and Plaintiff,

(b)

meet with and supply false, misleading and incomplete information
to the State Actors;

(c)

withhold or destroy exculpatory evidence in order to prejudice
the defense of Plaintiff;

(d)

commit peljury;

(e)

seize records of Harper's investigation, confidential tax returns,
bank statements and other records of Plaintiff and others;

(f)

tamper with witnesses;
- 63 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 67 of 74

(g)

tamper with evidence including, without limitation, knowingly
falsify chain of custody and other official records and court filings,
and knowingly withhold exculpatory evidence; and / or

(h)

falsely swear in affidavits signed in support of warrants for the seizure
of records.

236.

It was further part of the conspiracy that some of the Enterprise,

aided and abetted by each other and the State Actors, would maliciously prosecute
Plaintiff in violation of his Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
237.

Defendants, Glock Sr., the Glock Structure, and the Enterprise

engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, to wit:
(a)

tampering with evidence with the intent of causing the wrongful
apprehension of the Plaintiff and obstructing the defense of the
Plaintiff, a crime under O.C.G.A. § 16-10-94(a) and predicate act
under Georgia's RICO law, by knowingly destroying, altering,
concealing and/or disguising physical evidence and/or making,
devising, preparing or planting false evidence;

(b)

threatening or causing physical or economic harm to another
person or attempting to cause physical or economic harm to

- 64-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 68 of 74

another person with the intent to hinder, delay, prevent or dissuade
any person from:
(i) attending or testifYing in an official proceeding;
(ii) reporting in good faith to law enforcement the commission
of an offense under the laws of this state; and/or
(iii) causing a criminal prosecution to be sought or instituted or
assisting in such prosecution or proceeding, any of which
is a crime under O.C.G.A. § 16-10-32(b) and predicate act
under Georgia's RICO law;
(c)

usmg intimidation, physical force, threats, corrupt means or
misleading conduct with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the
testimony of any person in an official proceeding, a crime under
O.C.G.A. § 16-1 0-93(b)(1 )(A) and predicate act under Georgia's
RICO law;

(d)

using intimidation, physical force, threats, corrupt means or
misleading conduct with intent to cause or induce any person to
withhold testimony or a record, document, or other object from an
official proceeding, a crime under O.C.G.A. § 16-10-93(b)(1)(B)(i)
and predicate act under Georgia's RICO law;
- 65 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 69 of 74

(e)

usmg intimidation, physical force, threats, corrupt means or
misleading conduct with intent to cause or induce any person to
alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair
the object's integrity or availability for use in an official
proceeding, a crime under a.C.G.A. § 16-10-93(b)(1)(B)(ii) and
predicate act under Georgia's RICO law;

238.

It is unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering

activity or proceeds derived therefrom, to acquire or maintain, directly or
indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise, real property, or personal
propeliy of any nature, including money. a.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(a).
239.

Defendants acquired and maintained an interest m, and control

over property, including money, through a pattern of racketeering activity.
240.

Plaintiff has been injured by reason of the above-named

Defendants' violation of a.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(a) and is entitled to recover three
times the actual damages sustained.
241.

The above-named Defendants' violations of Georgia RICO

proximately caused injury to Plaintiff.

As a direct result of these violations,

Plaintiff has suffered injury, inter alia, to his person, property, professional
livelihood, reputation, and mental well being.
- 66 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 70 of 74

COUNT FOUR:
O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(B)
242.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein the

allegations set f0l1h in paragraphs 1-241 as if fully restated hereinafter.
243.

It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any

enterprise to conduct or pm1icipate in, directly or indirectly, an enterprise through a
pattern of racketeering activity. O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(b).
244.

The above-named Defendants were employed by or associated

with an enterprise and did conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, an
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of O.C.G.A. § 1614-4(b).
245.

Plaintiff has been injured by reason of the above-named

Defendants' violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(b) and is entitled to recover three
times the actual damages sustained.
246.

The above-named Defendants' violations of Georgia RICO

proximately caused injury to Plaintiff.

As a direct result of these violations,

Plaintiff has suffered injury, inter alia, to his person, property, professional
livelihood, reputation, and mental well being.

- 67 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 71 of 74

COUNT FIVE:
O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(C)
247.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein the

allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-246 as if fully restated hereinafter.
248.

It is unlawful for any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any

of the provisions of Georgia's RICO law, either subsection (a) or (b) of O.C.G.A. §
16-14-4.
249.

The above-named Defendants conspired amongst themselves, the

State Actors and perhaps others, known and unknown, to violate subsections (a)
and/or (b) ofO.C.G.A. § 16-14-4, Georgia's RICO law.
250.

The above-named Defendants committed overt acts in furtherance

of the conspiracy.
251.

Plaintiff has been injured by reason of the above-named

Defendants' violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(c) and is entitled to recover three
times the actual damages sustained.
252.

The above-named Defendants' violations of Georgia RICO

proximately caused injury to Plaintiff.

As a direct result of these violations,

Plaintiff has suffered injury, inter alia, to his person, property, professional
livelihood, reputation, and mental well being.

- 68 -

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 72 of 74

COUNT SIX:
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
253.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein the

allegations set fOlih in paragraphs 1-252 as if fully restated hereinafter.
254.

Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages to penalize, punish, or

deter Defendants.
255.

The above-described actions showed willful misconduct, malice,

fraud, wantonness, oppression, and an entire want of care that raises the
presumption of conscious indifference to consequences and specific intent to cause
harm, entitling Plaintiff to receive punitive damages sufficient to deter, penalize, or
punish Defendants.
256.

Said actions of Defendants were calculated with the specific intent

to cause harm to Plaintiff such that, under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1(f), there is no cap
on the amount of punitive damages that may be awarded.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks for a Judgment and other relief as follows:
(a)

Judgment in an amount equal to three times the actual damages
sustained and punitive damages, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-146(c);

(b)

That the Judgment against these Defendants be joint and several;
- 69-

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 73 of 74

(c)

Attorney's fees in the trial and appellate courts and costs of
investigation and litigation reasonably incurred, pursuant to the
laws of Georgia and federal law, including but not limited to,
O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

(d)

Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

(e)

Plaintiff is an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of O.C.G.A.

§ 16-14-6(b). As a result, Plaintiff may be entitled to appropriate
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief;
(f)

Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(a), Plaintiff asks the Court to issue
appropriate orders and judgment requiring the above-named
Defendants to cease their illegal conduct and imposing reasonable
restrictions upon their future activities sufficient to prohibit future
violations of the law;

(g)

Judgment ordering the dissolution or reorganization of Glock Inc.
and/or Consultinvest, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(a)(3);

(h)

Judgment ordering the suspension or revocation of any license,
permit, or prior approval granted by any agency of
pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(a)(4);

- 70-

the

state,

Case 1:15-cv-00723-TWT Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 74 of 74

(i)

Judgment ordering the forfeiture of the charter of Glock Inc. and/or
Consultinvest, corporations organized under the laws of Georgia,
pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(a)(5);

U)

Trial by jury; and

(k)

Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted, this 11 th day of March, 2015.
THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
Is/John F. Salter
JOHN F. SALTER
Ga. Bar No. 623325
ROY E. BARNES
Ga. Bar No. 039000

THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, Ga. 30060
BARNESLA W 770-227-6375
BARNESFAX 770-227-6373
www.barneslawgroup.com
[email protected]
[email protected]

- 71 -